GovernmentExecutive.com

The Defense Department continues to fail in its efforts to establish a stronger ethics program among its contracting officers, according to the Government Accountability Office.

In a report (GAO-05-341) issued last week that was based on information gathered between April 2004 and March 2005, GAO found that Defense lacks a centralized method of keeping track of ethics training, violations and contractors' ethics policies.

Federal acquisition regulations require contracting officials to avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest. They are banned from receiving gifts from contractors or potential contractors and seeking employment with vendors, among other requirements.

While contracting ethics at Defense, which bought $200 billion worth of goods and services in fiscal 2004, have long been of concern to taxpayers and Congress, the Darleen Druyun scandal, in which a high-ranking Air Force official was fired for unethical behavior in awarding contracts, gave the issue fresh attention.

GAO found that Defense's 2,000 ethics counselors, who are responsible for training and counseling employees, vary in how well they educate contracting officers. When employees left the department, some counselors offered in-depth explanations of their employment restrictions, while others just handed the departing employees pamphlets.

"In an environment where the risk of ethical misconduct can be costly, DoD is missing opportunities to raise the level of confidence that its safeguards protect the public trust," the report stated.

It also found that counselors often are unaware of ethics violations, which prompted GAO to recommend that ethics counselors regularly report on misconduct cases. Defense disagreed and said law enforcement officials are responsible for keeping track of misconduct.

The watchdog agency also recommended that Defense pay closer attention to contractors' ethics programs. GAO found that the agencies responsible for overseeing contractor behavior - the Defense Contract Management Agency and the Defense Contract Audit Agency - had not reviewed contractors' practices in hiring former government employees.

An independent review of a large Defense contractor found that the company failed to follow proper procedures when hiring government employees, and relied on employees to self-monitor. GAO visited seven contractors and found that Defense had not discussed appropriate hiring procedures with any of them.

Defense officials agreed with the recommendation and said it plans to discuss ethics with contractors.

COMMENTS

• FOR THE WRITER WHO COULDN'T WAIT TO BE A CROOK. If you are already employed with them, you are definitely in the running. Charlie Posted June 10, 2005 8:47 PM
• I have the utmost respect for DoD contracting officers. Anyone in those positions should be required to have their heads examined because they are performing a thankless job that management does not support! The Federal Acquistion Regulations (FAR) try to document every possible step in the acuisition process and lead to contradictions in the regulations. Also, management does not support the required activities of the contrating offices and the contracting officers representative. A large part of the current problems are due to the fact that the FAR is applied to everything and tries to cover international actions under various contracts. cOs are not allowed to travel to work sites to see if performance is in line with contracts and finance people are paying invoices without ever getting certification that proper quality work has been received. Action officers are changing contract terms with contractors without going through contract officers and finance people are paying for these out of contract actions. The entire government acquistion process is out of control and really does not follow the FAR as it should. In spit of that the system for the most part works because most contracting officers have good ethics. Ethics training is not going to help the process at all! Sending the violators to prison for extended periods greater that two years will! taxpayer Posted May 27, 2005 7:58 AM
• The unfortunate outcome is that the entire acquisition community is deemed potentially unethical and guilty, therefore required to take additional ethics training over and above the already required ethics training. That's fair, NOT. For the individual who states that "a lot" of CO's have a GOD complex, you obviously weren't in procurement or you'd understand that the FAR specifics places many requirements on the CO. It's not about being in a power position. The CO is the one in the hot seat in court when legal action is taken so you bet your biscuits that they're (we're) going to do whatever THEY/We feel necessary in any specific situation. As for accepting products or changing requirements....whose to say that the program office didn't write a requirement specific to their favorite vendor? I see program folks lunching and hanging out with contractors all the time. They aren't under the same microscope yet there's some who provide information that may give preference or unfair advantage to their buddies firm. ALL acquisition folks shouldn't take the hit because of what one unethical acquisition idiot did. Face it, if someone is unethical you can train them till the cows come home and they'll still be unethical. Dahhh. GovExec.com reader Posted May 12, 2005 9:43 AM